From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261178AbVGKS27 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:28:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261966AbVGKPTI (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:19:08 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:15837 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261982AbVGKPSa (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:18:30 -0400 Message-ID: <42D28D7E.3050401@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:17:18 +0900 From: Kenji Kaneshige User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: ja, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zwane Mwaikambo CC: Arjan van de Ven , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] i386: Per node IDT References: <1121054565.3177.2.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, > Agreed, the first version was a per cpu one simply so that i could test it > on a normal SMP system. Andi seems to be of the same opinion, what do you > think of the hotplug cpu case (explained in previous email)? I think we need to migrate interrupts to the other CPU in the hotplug CPU case. Even when we use per node approach, we need to consider interrupt migration between nodes because all CPUs on the node could be hot-removed. Thanks, Kenji Kaneshige